As anybody who has read a John le Carré novel knows, the spooks, many of whom work with or as diplomats, are in the habit of putting false information about in order to achieve this or that noble or nefarious end. Which raises a number of subtle questions regarding the recent WikiLeaks cable disclosures: how much of this stuff is exaggerated or untrue? Is it even possible to untangle the web of deceit and counter-deceit (and incompetence and foolishness) woven by our diplomats and their masters? Exactly what methods are El Pais, Le Monde, Der Spiegel, the New York Times and the Guardian—the newspapers called on to vet and disseminate this tsunami of official tongue-wagging—employing in order to verify the truth or falsity of each document released? Who is really controlling the publication of this information, and to what purpose? READ MORE

So yes, Keith Olbermann had a chit chit with Michael Moore the other night and Moore described Julian Assange's sexual assault charges in a very incredible, not at all good way! Now it's war, reasonably—spearheaded by Awl pal Sady Doyle on behalf of, you know, women who press rape charges and are met with scorn, suspicion and undermining—with Olbermann totally unwilling to understand why people are upset.

This will go on today.

In any event, Julian Assange's bail was granted and then denied by a higher court:

In dismissing the appeal by prosecutors, the judge said he also accepted arguments by the prosecution that many of those who were posting bail for Mr. Assange were doing so because they supported WikiLeaks and might regard “absconding as a right and justified act” to keep the beleaguered Web site running.

At least 180 people were laid off today at Conde Nast, the magazine company with $3.5 billion in revenue last year. More will be laid off as the Christmas season grinds its way towards us. At the height of Tina Brown era, the New Yorker's editorial budget was $30 million a year. If that astounding number were still true, which it certainly is not still that monster, and every magazine there were as insanely expensive, which they are not, then it would cost $510 million a year for editorial on 17 magazines. Triple that (an excessive estimate!) to pay for the business side: congratulations, you are still making $1.5 billion in profit. Oh, wait, let's set aside $500 million in rent? Still all clear, at a billion! Say your advertising income shrinks by 30% across the board. Are you in the red? Only if you keep spending at just above that rate-and you wouldn't, would you now? So what do you do? Yes. You fire people. As many as possible! Stupid fucking people, with their places to live and their constant desire for food. READ MORE